Ted Cruz is Awesome - XIV! - Gun Control [UPDATED]

Senator Ted Cruz calls BS on Democrat gun control theater in the wake of recent mass shootings in Boulder, CO and Atlanta, GA: 

Here's the video link if you cannot see the embed:   https://youtu.be/g26nKMueWK4

[UPDATE]  Ted Cruz's bill could have directly prevented the mass shooting in Boulder, CO, which is the subject of the above exchange.  Turns out the FBI had the shooter in its sights as a possible Muslim extremist, yet he was able to pass an FBI background check and legally buy an AR-15 ten days before murdering ten people in a grocery store billed as, "Your One Stop Shop for Kosher Groceries".  Democrats filibustered the bill that could have prevented this mass shooting.  It had majority and bipartisan support in the Senate and had already passed the House.        

Fact Check: Ted Cruz is Awesome IX

Watch Ted Cruz summarize what's going on at the U.S. Supreme Court under John Roberts.  And while he accurately captures the absurdity and lawlessness at the court, it needs to be put in context.  For this is a time in America when going surfing, cutting hair, attending a gym, or going to church can land you in jail, but rioting, looting, arson, and assaulting a cop are actually celebrated.  

Oh, and stock valuations are at all time highs in the middle of a global pandemic and shutdown.  Absurd times indeed.  

Ted Cruz is Awesome! XII

What no one seems to know about Ted Cruz's time at the FTC:         (From: PJ Media)  

At the FTC, Cruz’s agenda could have been written by Milton Friedman. 

Cruz promoted economic liberty and fought government efforts to rig the marketplace in favor of special interests. Most notably, Cruz launched an initiative to study the government’s role in conspiring with established businesses to suppress e-commerce. This initiative ultimately led the U.S. Supreme Court to open up an entire industry to small e-tailers. Based on his early support of disruptive online companies, Cruz has some grounds to call himself the “Uber of American politics.” 

Moreover, and perhaps surprising to some, Cruz sought and secured a broad, bipartisan consensus for his agenda. Almost all of Cruz’s initiatives received unanimous support among both Republicans and Democrats. 

Ted Cruz a consensus-builder? He was, at the FTC.

Ted Cruz is Awesome! XI

saw this tonight and had to repost:

  

DON SURBER: Thank You, Ted Cruz, For Helping Flint Out. How many bottles of water did Bernie Sanders send?
Well, none, but he has a new ad with Simon and Garfunkel music.
Posted at 11:22 pm by Glenn Reynolds   (from Glenn Reynolds www.instapundit.com)
Here's the Don Surber piece below:  
Thank you, Cruz, for helping out Flint

Having spent much time in January 2014 trying to score bottled water when the local water system went down, my heart is with those in Flint, Michigan, who are without safe water. Ours was from an industrial alcohol that smelled like licorice and within weeks it disappeared. They have lead in theirs, so the problem is a real nightmare.

Ted Cruz came to the rescue with 600 gallons of water. That does not sound like much, until you consider that is 600 people who got a gallon of water when their water was out.

From WJRT:

Senator Ted Cruz's Michigan office spent the day handing out gallons of water to the Flint community.

We caught up with them as they dropped off gallons of water at Carriage Town Ministries.

They dropped off around 600 gallons and cases of water throughout the area, delivering to expectant mothers at crisis centers.

Volunteers say it's the least they can do to help out residents in need of clean water.

"Senator Cruz has already made a very strong statement on this issue in support of the people of Flint, in acknowledging what's happened with the government failure on basically every level. And we believe it's our civic duty to reach out. We have to be willing to step up. And here we are putting our money and time where our mouth is," said Wendy Day, state director for the Ted Cruz campaign.

Cruz talked about Flint's water emergency on the campaign trail. While in New Hampshire, he said, "What has happened in Flint, Michigan is an absolute travesty. The men and women have been betrayed. Every one of us is entitled to have clean water. And to all the children who have been poisoned...by government officials, by their negligence, their ineptitude, there needs to be accountability as to why dirty water, poisoned water was given to a community that did not deserve this. Need to ensure there is accountability, clean water and clean air. Prayers for people of Flint, Michigan that health affects aren't as long-lasting as many think they will be. Needs to be accountability from the city government all the way up."

The EPA knew about this problem and did nothing.

And Washington pundits wonder why the people are against everything Washington stands for?

By the way, where was Bernie? Hillary? O'Malley? Any of the staffs of the other Republicans?

Hell, where was Barack Obama?

Ted Cruz is Awesome! X

Donald Trump won hands-down over Ted Cruz on the "New York Values" exchange during Thursday's debate when he invoked 9/11.  It was evidence of Trump's evolving genius as a politician. Yet, I'm a constitutionalist, and therefore a natural supporter of the less skilled Cruz.  Hence, this post is not about Trump's victory, but Cruz's adept "apology" to the people of NY after the debate.  He did an awesome job of turning lemons into lemonade.

Ted Cruz is Awesome! VIII

Watch for as long as you like, but the whole thing is worth seeing.
At least to this classical liberal observer, this may be the best political speech I've ever seen.

Here's the link in case the embed doesn't work properly. Remember, this is C-SPAN, a government operation.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-12/senator-ted-cruz-budget-deal

Ted Cruz is Awesome! VII

I heard Ben Carson refer to this as a "Cruz Missile".  I like that.

Search for Ted Cruz in the upper left search box for the other six "Ted Cruz is Awesome!" posts.

UPDATE: I tried to upload my own version of this exchange from CNBC but was blocked by NBC for copyright infringement.  I intend to file a claim based on this being a public matter that is now in the public domain.  If they continue to fight, I will research whether they are as strict with Democrat content, because if not, that constitutes an in-kind unreported campaign contribution to the Democrat party.  As Saul Alinsky said, "Make them live up to their own book of rules."  This will be interesting...

UPDATE2: They capitulated, and the above clip is now my version.  

Ted Cruz is Awesome! VI

Just watch the whole thing... (This is number six in a series.  Search for "Ted Cruz" on this site for the others...)



I would also note that our planet has been warming and glaciers melting since the last ice age 15,000 years ago.  Our sun varies in output according to certain vague and unknown timed cycles.  About 99% of the energy absorbed by our biosphere comes from the sun.   Our solar system circumnavigates our galaxy once every 250 million years.  We know very little about the climatic effects of any of this.  Period.  The science is largely unknown at this time.  Run from anyone who tells you otherwise.

Behind the Polls - The Alinsky Effect (UPDATED)

Analysts puzzling at the outsider surge in GOP polls may be missing something obvious.  No doubt, everything they’ve said about the reasons for the Trump, Carson, Cruz, and Fiorina momentum is true.  But, there is another way of looking at this that gets to the heart of the matter and sheds light on how other candidates, even establishment ones, can understand and learn from what’s going on.

The key is the Alinsky effect.  For half a century the Left has been studying and internalizing the teachings of Saul Alinsky, the father of community organizing.  The Right has largely ignored this development or pooh poohed it outright.  For seven years, Obama used Alinsky tactics with great effect.  The GOP has been unable to thwart any of the Obama juggernaut.   In the last two presidential elections, John McCain and Mitt Romney were both steamrolled by obvious Alinsky tactics but seemed naively unaware of what was being done to them.

The GOP base has watched this slow-motion train wreck and has had enough.  They are not just looking for a candidate this time,  they are looking for a candidate who can turn the tables on the Alinsky tactics.  They want a candidate who is both Alinsky-proof from attack and one who knows how to go on offense.  The four outsiders with momentum, Trump, Carson, Cruz, and Fiorina are, not surprisingly, the ones who can best do this.

Trump probably never heard of Saul Alinsky but seems an intuitive Alinsky-ite himself.   He wrote “The Art of the Deal”, a kind of a businessman’s “Rules for Radicals”.  Attack him, he attacks back. Mock him, he mocks back.  Personalize it, he calls you stupid, ugly, fat, and dumb.  His supporters eat it up.  The press cannot touch him.  Mitt Romney would have made hundreds of apology speeches by now.  Trump hasn’t made one.  It’s pure Alinsky.

Ben Carson went so far as to mention Saul Alinsky in the last debate.  He talks about Alinsky all the time.  He gets it.  He won’t fall for the tactics when they come.  And he is un-Alinsky-able by resume.  If he demonstrates an ability to turn the tables and go on offense, expect his star to continue to rise.

Ted Cruz has already demonstrated a playful ability to turn the tables on the Alinsky tactics used on him by both Democrats and Republicans.  He has surely read Alinsky.  He’s not as good as some of the others at the performance aspect, but his Alinsky bona fides are not a concern.

Carly Fiorina has also likely read Alinsky.  She has been leading the Alinsky assault on Hillary Clinton from the GOP.  She’s been funny, brutal, and unrelenting.  Moreover, she’s done well on defense when attacked by the media and Trump.

The flip side of the Alinsky effect is what’s happening to some of those losing momentum, most notably Jeb Bush and Scott Walker.  No one can question Walker’s resiliency in Wisconsin, but his ability to go on offense seems in question.  Bush is questionable on both fronts.  In addition, both have performance, policy and consistency issues.

I sincerely hope GOP voters have learned their lessons and will not nominate another sheep for the Alinsky slaughter.  Then again, this is only one of the factors being weighed by the electorate.  So far, it seems like an important one to GOP voters.

UPDATE:  The Alinsky effect was on full display at last night's CNN debate:

Fiorina landed an Alinsky punch on Trump's face and, by all indications, won the CNN round.
 
Chris Christie proved, as he has in NJ, that he can play the Alinsky game as well as anyone.  His performance and substance also won high marks.
 
Trump was his usual juvenile self, but his supporters don't seem to care as long as he delivers the Alinsky goods, and he did in spades.
 
Marco Rubio did well among GOP voters, but the Alinsky effect was not a factor.  Rubio is a straight man, and a good one at that, but Saul Alinsky said, "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon...", which does not well suit a straight man.
 
Ben Carson revealed the limits of his experience, performance, and Alinsky offense abilities.  Not his best outing.

Ted Cruz is another straight man, though he is Alinsky ready.  He did well among conservatives, but his performance issues continue to hold him back.

Jeb Bush showed once again that he would be as effective against Alinsky tactics as was Mitt Romney.  In other words, not at all.

Yes, there were others at the debate, but I'm focusing on the ones most affected by the Alinsky effect.            

Would Ted Cruz have made the Bergdahl trade?

No matter your politics, I think you know the answer.

Ted Cruz is Awesome! V

Yesterday, Ted Cruz (insert lefty and pop media laugh track here) announced he is running for president.  He spoke at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University (insert secularist laugh track here) and gave a rousing, conservative, (insert establishment GOP laugh track here) thirty minute off-the-cuff speech (insert teleprompter apologist laugh track here).  There was no equivocation, vague hedging, weasel words, or doubt about what he would fight for with every fiber of his being (insert special interest and lobbyist laugh track here).

I hope Ted Cruz is successful in going direct to the people.  There just may be enough serious Americans who have their eyes open and cannot be convinced by a phony laugh track.

Here are links to the other four in the series:

Ted Cruz is Awesome! I  (Cruz takes on DiFi)

Ted Cruz is Awesome! II (Cruz takes on ObamaCare)

Ted Cruz is Awesome! III (Cruz is proven right for taking on ObamaCare)

Ted Cruz is Awesome! IV  (Cruz takes on Arab bigots)



 

Why impeachment should be the first item in the new congress...

I keep hearing GOP leaders and strategist announcing that impeachment is not an option.  The reasoning goes something like this:  "Yes, Obama has certainly committed numerous impeachable offenses, but impeachment is a political maneuver, it never works, and it will certainly backfire on the GOP, especially with this historic president."  Fair enough.  But what about doing your job?  Is it not the job of congress to impeach if warranted?  At what point does impeachment become the right thing to do for the future of constitutional governance in the US regardless of the consequences?  Is there ever a point where doing the right thing trumps doing the politically expedient thing?

(As far as what the articles of impeachment should be, that is beyond the scope of this post.  Suffice it to say there are books on the subject.  Two good examples are Aaron Klein's and Andrew McCarthy's.)  

A similar refrain repeats itself when talking about defunding.  Excuse me if I missed something, but the GOP just won an historical election AFTER the supposed embarrassment of Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and a few others doing the right thing on Obamacare in 2013.  Where is the evidence that they did anything but long-term good for their party?  Who else stood for what was right at the time, and now turns out to be even more right in light of the recently exposed "Grubering" of the American people?

Remember, Bush beat Gore AFTER the Clinton impeachment.  Then he won again.

    

Ted Cruz is Awesome! IV

Ted Cruz has done it once again.  Exhibiting more "cohones" than the rest of the elected GOP combined, he spoke to a group of mostly Lebanese Arab Christians who call themselves "In Defense of Christians" (IDC) and said the following:

(From The Daily Caller)  

“Religious bigotry is a cancer with many manifestations,” he continued. “ISIS, al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Hamas, state sponsors like Syria and Iran, are all engaged in a vicious genocidal campaign to destroy religious minorities in the Middle East. Sometimes we are told not to loop these groups together, that we have to understand their so called nuances and differences. But we shouldn’t try to parse different manifestations of evil that are on a murderous rampage through the region. Hate is hate, and murder is murder. Our purpose here tonight is to highlight a terrible injustice, a humanitarian crisis.”

“Christians have no greater ally than Israel,” he said, at which point members of the crowd began to yell “stop it” and booed him.

So they booed him, and then he said, "If you won't stand with Israel and the Jews, then I won't stand with you."  Then he walked off the stage.  Bravo.  

Here is a link to the leadership list of the IDC:  (Oops, they took down their leadership page!  And there's no history at the Wayback Machine either.  Suffice to say I went there yesterday and on the list was a who's who of Lebanese Americans.  Some, like Ray LaHood (Obama's former Transportation Sec'y and Lebanese), James Zogby (Arab political activist and Lebanese), and John Ashcroft (a Bush 43 Attorney General, and a rare non Lebanese) were from the political world.)

Heres the clip of Cruz being booed and walking off stage: (Hat Tip: EWTN News Nightly's Jason Calvi)  



See also:
Ted Cruz is Awesome!
Ted Cruz is Awesome! II
Ted Cruz is awesome! III

Ted Cruz Is Awesome! III

Last week Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee were the lowest forms of scum on the planet, and that was just what the GOP establishment was saying about them!  Democrats went even further calling them arsonists, terrorists, and hostage takers among other things.  Why?  Because they wanted to defund or delay Obamacare.

Now a week later there are probably enough Democrats leaning towards delaying Obamacare to pass the senate with a majority!  You can't make this stuff up.  Are these Democrats arsonists, terrorists, and hostage takers?  Is a comedian like Jon Stewart, who is the de-facto news anchor for Democrats under 90,  also an arsonist and a terrorist?  He too has brutally addressed Obamacare pointing out the obvious - it is simply not ready.    

Cruz and Lee were arguing, among other things, that Obamacare (Officially the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", a name straight out of "Atlas Shrugged"!) had ceased to exist in it's original form.  Yes, it had passed on a party-line vote in 2010 and it survived one Supreme Court challenge in 2012, but Barack Obama has unilaterally rewritten it several times since then.  The legislature is supposed to rewrite laws under our system, not the executive.  Big employers were granted waivers for a year, Congress was given government subsidies in direct opposition to the law, income verification was waived, out-of-pocket caps were waived, and the penalty was rewritten by the SCOTUS as a "tax".   Defund or delay was predicated in part on the premise that the passed law no longer existed.  That, and the self-evident truth that if the law was ready to implement, Obama himself would not have rewritten it several times!  Turns out they were right.

So the good news for Cruz and Lee is that they have been vindicated on that aspect.  The science is settled, as they say.  The bad news comes via others who came before them and similarly challenged the establishment:  recall, Galileo Galilei was put under house arrest for the remainder of his life for asserting that the earth revolved around the sun, in direct opposition to the "establishment" belief that it was the other way around.

Healthcare Palestinians II

Republicans are split.  Some think Obamacare is a disaster.  Others think Obamacare is a disaster.  Oh wait...  

Of course the split is about what to do.  Some say if Obamacare is a disaster the responsible thing to do is to stop it, or at least go down trying.  Others say, no, no, no, the right thing to do is let it go through, make everyone miserable, kill innovation in the fast moving health sector, make the country even more dependent on Fed money printing, put more people on welfare and subsidies, politicize and socialize 16% of the US economy, install the IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board - aka the "Death Panel"), drag down personal wealth, kill jobs, stall the economy, and don't worry the public will blame it all on Democrats!  In other words, one group is acting out of principle and the other out of crass political gamesmanship.  

But there is a problem with the crass political gamesmanship approach.  It will not work.  There are numerous prominent examples of how these political bank-shots backfire.  I call this the "Healthcare Palestinian" approach.  To wit:

Israel's neighbors have long believed that the best way to destroy Israel is to maintain an army of angry Palestinian refugees on their borders.  Keep them poor, keep them in refugee camps, keep them oppressed, and don’t ever let them assimilate into the vast Arab lands surrounding Israel.  To a frightening extent this diabolical and inhumane scheme has worked to create maximum misery but little else.  The Palestinians in refugee camps are mainly the ones who go around blowing themselves up, not the ones who have assimilated into Israel and the Arab countries.  Everyone knows about the wall keeping hostile Palestinians from flooding into Israel.  Very few are aware that there are similar impediments keeping Palestinians out of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.  Do those countries ever get blamed for forcing Palestinians into refugee camps?  This has been the Democrat strategy when it comes to healthcare.  

The last thing Democrats ever wanted was a true functioning individual market for health insurance.  Instead Democrats have forced most Americans, 95% currently, into rigid, non-portable, bureaucratic insurance plans provided by either the government or their bosses.   The move to a true individual market would have always been an easy one (see "The Healthcare Gecko").  But that's not what Democrats wanted lest they lose control.  We have all been made into healthcare refugees.  Who get's blamed for this?  Greedy insurance companies, employers, and Republicans.  Republicans are standing in the way of your God-given right to free healthcare!  Democrats get zero blame and will continue to get zero blame when Obamacare is found to be the disaster everyone knows a 2700 page unread law will be. 

The same exact thing happened with the financial collapse of 2008.  Ask ten people today what caused the financial collapse and nine will say greedy banks, deregulation, Bush's tax cuts, capitalism; in other words Republicans.  Only one in ten may get it right; the financial collapse was caused by Democrats who pursued redistribution-of-wealth policies in the housing sector.  Home ownership became a God-given right, just as healtcare has become now.  Subprime mortgages, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, no-doc loans, liar loans, zero down payments, easy money, low interest rates, mortgage interest deductions; these are all unanimous Democrat policies.  These are the policies which crashed the financial system.  These are the policies championed by Barack Obama as a community organizer, state senator, US senator, candidate for President and POTUS.  Did he ever get blamed for any of this?  No, nor will he ever.  Will he be blamed when Obamacare collapses?  No, nor will his party.  Democrats are just trying to give you free healthcare after all, which is your right!  

Republicans with the exception of the new breed - Cruz, Lee, Paul, Rubio et al, don't even understand why it is impossible to make a good or service provided by others into a right.  It cannot be done without enslaving the providers of that good or service.  So yeah, let it go into full effect, let it be a disaster, and let the blame all accrue to... Republicans.  Seems like a winning approach to me if you're a Democrat.        

Ted Cruz is Awesome! II

Senator Ted Cruz is exceptional.  If you watched C-SPAN2 instead of any of the news nets, you would have seen a man in charge of the facts, speaking passionately and articulately for 21 hours about a law shoved down the public's throat on a party-line vote, which federalizes 16% of the US economy and promises to give us a healthcare system with all the excellence of the United States Postal Service.   As Senator Mike Lee eloquently put it: "We have exited the territorial confines of constitutional governance."

No one watching that marathon could mistake Cruz's motives.  He was not doing that so he could someday flit around in Air force One and make speeches at fundraisers.  His motivation was two-fold:  bring maximum attention to a dire issue, and further his aspirations to someday restore individual liberty from the Bully Pulpit.   Based on his turn at the Filibuster Pulpit, I say bully for you Mr. Cruz!  

Here are some highlights from 21 hours of cogency, minus the reading of Green Eggs and Ham, which the media wants you to believe went on for 21 hours!  

(Below is my original piece about Ted Cruz from 3/15.  As you can see little has changed in the reactions of the dinosaurs - from both parties!) 

Ted Cruz is Awesome!   

Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX) has a point.  In the latest freak-out over Cruz’s venturing off the freshman plantation, members of the old guard are wetting their Depends because Cruz had the audacity to pose a really good question to Diane Feinstein (D, CA)  about guns and the second amendment.  If you haven’t seen the exchange, here is the question Cruz asked Feinstein: 

“The question that I would pose to the senior Senator from California is: Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment? Namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?

“Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?”

After the question, the entire Democrat contingency went apoplectic, talking out of turn to lecture Cruz about how the first and fourth amendments have limitations and are not absolute.  The reason Cruz has a point is that in all limitations on the first and fourth amendments, those limitations exist because the rights of others have already been infringed!  

Take the old example of unnecessarily yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.  That speech is outside the first amendment because it denies other theatergoers their right to not be trampled in a stampede.  Similarly, the child pornography limitation on free speech exists because children are harmed, rights denied, by the very existence of child pornography.

Similarly, an indiscriminate roadblock, which stops all motorists in an attempt to catch a dangerous criminal, is an exception to the fourth amendment protection on unreasonable search and seizure because it has been deemed reasonable in order to catch a criminal who already has denied someone their rights.

Gun ownership is a different case.  Gun ownership by itself, even if it involves a dangerous assault weapon, denies no one else’s rights.  There is the potential that any gun can be used criminally or negligently, but until that happens, can congress legally deny the people’s constitutional right to keep it and bear it?  This seems like a reasonable enough question, which is why it elicited such a petulant response from princess DiFi and her minions.

Interestingly, if the framers didn’t want the second amendment to be an absolute right, they could have simply used the same word they used in the fourth amendment, unreasonable.  It's not like they didn't know the word existed.  The second amendment would then have read: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be unreasonably infringed.”  It doesn’t, and we should not pretend it does.

The more I hear from Ted Cruz the more I respect him.  Please keep it up Ted.  

PS  All this talk of "DC v Heller", which Cruz's critics have cited is completely besides the point.  The question was to DiFi about her views on the constitution, not her opinion of the SCOTUS and the Heller decision.  Her response, Leahy's response, and all the Democrats responses were disrespectful and shameful.   

Here's the whole shebang in case you missed it: 

Ted Cruz is Awesome!

Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX) has a point.  In the latest freak-out over Cruz’s venturing off the freshman plantation, members of the old guard are wetting their Depends because Cruz had the audacity to pose a really good question to Diane Feinstein (D, CA)  about guns and the second amendment.  If you haven’t seen the exchange, here is the question Cruz asked Feinstein: 

“The question that I would pose to the senior Senator from California is: Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment? Namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?

“Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?”

After the question, the entire Democrat contingency went apoplectic talking out of turn to lecture Cruz about how the first and fourth amendments have limitations and are not absolute.  The reason Cruz has a point is that in all limitations on the first and fourth amendments, those limitations exist because the rights of others have already been infringed.  

Take the old example of unnecessarily yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.  That speech is outside the first amendment because it denies other theatergoers their right to not be trampled in a stampede.  Similarly, the child pornography limitation on free speech exists because children are harmed, rights denied, by the very existence of child pornography.

Similarly, an indiscriminate roadblock, which stops all motorists in an attempt to catch a dangerous criminal, is an exception to the fourth amendment protection on unreasonable search and seizure because it has been deemed reasonable in order to catch a criminal who already has denied someone their rights.

Gun ownership is a different case.  Gun ownership by itself, even if it involves a dangerous assault weapon, denies no one else’s rights.  There is the potential that any gun can be used criminally or negligently, but until that happens, can congress legally deny the people’s constitutional right to keep it and bear it?  This seems like a reasonable enough question, which is why it elicited such a petulant response from princess DiFi and her minions.

Interestingly, if the framers didn’t want the second amendment to be an absolute right, they could have simply used the same word they used in the fourth amendment, unreasonable.  It's not like they didn't know the word existed.  The second amendment would then have read: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be unreasonably infringed.”  It doesn’t, and we should not pretend it does.

The more I hear from Ted Cruz the more I respect him.  Please keep it up Ted.  

PS  All this talk of "DC v Heller", which Cruz's critics have cited is completely besides the point.  The question was to DiFi about her views on the constitution, not her opinion of the SCOTUS and the Heller decision.  Her response, Leahy's response, and all the Democrats responses were disrespectful and shameful.   

Here's the whole shebang in case you missed it: